On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Tom Walsh wrote:
> market to the detriment of the low-end. The only time we get cool
> embedded stuff to use is when they sell a U.S. automobile manufacturer
> on using that chip, after the chip is no longer needed by the auto
> people, it usually gets dropped. The only chip that they ever really
> kept around was the 68HC11 due to the suprising popularity of the device
> in the embedded space (to Motorola's surprise). IMHO, Motorola does not
> understand the embedded market, they bumble along and eventually produce
> something interesting to the rest of us (DragonBall, 683XX cores).
Interesting, that's exactly how I've always thought of Intel! Mot has
always known exactly how/what/where and Intel just bumbles along getting
lucky. Just goes to show that there is no agreement on this subject at
all, just advocates for both.
As for little/big endin, seems to me that the reason ppl like big endin is
it's right reading in memory. People like little endin because this (and
it's equiv. in other languages and of course assembler) work naturally...
long i = 0x1234;
short *p = &i;
Big endin machines print 0x0, little endin machines print 0x1234. IMHO,
bad code should produce bad results, not hide them so it breaks
later. BTW, if you have trouble with the `more` utility shipped with some
uClinux CDs, it's caused by exactly this bug. uC-src more was originally
written for ELKS, Linux for 8086, which is a little endin machine and
effectively hid the bug.
D. Jeff Dionne
> Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> 'www.openhardware.net', 'www.cyberiansoftware.com'
> "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> This message resent by the email@example.com list server http://www.uClinux.com/
This message resent by the firstname.lastname@example.org list server http://www.uClinux.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 00:01:39 EST